From the article:
>> A Constitutionalist demands from elected officials 100% compliance with the limitations placed on them by the Constitution. No wiggle room just because they will vote for our favorite extra-constitutional program.
A Constitutionalist decides that the Constitution is not a living breathing document that entitles us to vote for politicians that will give us what we want; whether it be a new entitlement program, farm subsidy, war, or aircraft carrier.
A Constitutionalist is not impressed with a politicians claim to support the Constitution simply by carrying and whipping out the pocket Constitution at opportune times.
It is really that simple. A Constitutionalist demands allegiance to the Constitution, all the time, every time, every vote....no exceptions! >>
That’s a nice concept - and just as lame brained as those who think a liberal utopia is possible. Nobody is 100% anything all the time ever. Just does not happen in the human condition. The Founders, unlike the author, had the wisdom to understand this. Thus the phrase “more perfect union” instead of a perfect union.
The author IMO is trying to position himself as above the fray in some sort of irrelevant purity that does not exist. From the mess we are in now, someone who is conservative and who would move us 20% closer to that 100% impossible purity would be a huge improvement.
The author of this article seems to be taking a page from Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. His opinion seems to be at this point in history nothing we can do is going to stop the destruction, so we are better off not slowing it down, because we are exhibiting insanity in trying to do so.
Reminiscent of Alice and the Mad Hatter:
MH: Would you like some more tea?
Alice: I can't have more tea, I haven't had any yet!
MH: you mean you can't have less; it's easy to have more than nothing.
Hmmm, I’m not sure the introductory phrase “a more perfect Union” has anything to do with the restraints placed on Congress in Article 1. Section and the oath all Members of Congress before God and man to uphold those restraints 100% of the time. How odd you’d point to that.
Perhaps you should read Locke a little and throw off your “more perfect Union” rule of men thinking. Or do you not agree the moral superiority of the RULE OF LAW as in the Constitution.
Feel free to hide behind a parenthetical phrase as justification for your concept of what a more perfect Union is...I’m not sure it’s a good defense for the Framers “maturity” though. Good luck with your ideology, I’ll continue to promote the Constitutional notion of federalism as a solution...not just getting my guy into office.